Also the reduce taxes line of crap

This prop smells bad

I am an Aggie and in the SAFD. Look at who is against the props. Big money. Everyone who already gets contracts from the city council. Everyone who has already spent the money to buy votes. These prop A puts the power back to the tax payer. That is why they are so scared. Should a city manager make more than the governor and president of the United stated combined. If you don't think so vote for prop B. The city has been sueing us for 5 years over the last contract. All we want in prop C is a neutral third party the city doesn't control. Please vote for prop C. How often does the democratic and republican parties agree. Both parties support all the props. That should tell you some thing. We don't have the money the other side does. We can't get the info out. Vote yes to all.

https://empowertexans.com/central-texas/san-antonio-voters-to-decide-three-ballot-propositions/

For a non biased opinion. Read this. If you think the media is non biased in San Antonio, than you are mistaken. Ask Trump About media.

SanAntoneAg said:

---

Got a flyer in the mail today saying that "the Republican Party" supports all three. I'm smelling BS.

---

And I got on too yesterday.

An answer for prop c is an easy yes. Every public safety union has an evergreen clause. That is standard practice. That is why the Texas Supreme Court did not even hear the city's case. Scullys contract even has an evergreen clause. It is illegal for a public safety union to strike. That is the purpose of an evergreen clause. What is not said is that when we are in evergreen we do not get raises or any additional benefit. So the city is actually not concerned with a new contract. The purpose of prop c is to try to level the playing field with the city. Right now they can lie and hide money during negotiations which they do. If an impass is reached we are asking for a third party to come in and find common ground. It would be illegal for the city to lie during arbitration. So all their cards have to be on the table. Then the three arbitrators will make a binding decition. Don't believe what the fake media is reporting. Do more research. And yes the Republican Party backs the props. I would think that being from a concervative background y'all would realize these props are about smaller government with more oversight. That is what trump is all about. At is what the Republicans are all about. I guess to many of y'all are believers in all the Democrats running city hall and what the Democrat media is reporting. And yes the Bexar county Democrats support them to, but the media won't report that. So I really don't care if you vote for the first two, but please support prop c.

Yes we have good insurance. That is because we have given up so much in the past negotiations. The city denies most of our workman's comp claims and denied all cancer claims. We have buried 4 fire fighters in the past three years. From job related cancers. One was Lt. Max Weltens in July,class of 95' I believe. A good Aggie. These are young guys with young kids. A dozen more are battling now or are survivors. The facts are there we are (in certain cancers) firefighters are some times twice as likely to get these cancers. Legislation has been written they should be covered by workman's comp but that is denied by the city. Long story short. Prop C will help us go to a third party to help make decisions when the city has in no way negotiated in good faith. Please support prop c.

Also what is not reported is during negotiations we offered to run our own health insurance. Take it out of the city's hands therefore only negotiate wages. We would be paying premiums to our own benefits keeping the city out. They immediately said no. Their reason was what if it fails than y'all would have nothing. Our response was than we will go under the same insurance as all the other city employees if ours fails. They wanted nothing to do with that. They want us to pay them the premiums because most firefighters are young and in great shape and don't use their insurance. If you think one side is shady always look at the side with the trained politicians. Vote yes has nothing to hide.

The only prop that directly effects firefighters is C. That is the only one that we wanted. We took the lead in helping all the other groups like street car, statue being taken down, Hays street bridge, Alamo plaza and the list goes on. Everyone is tired of being lied to by the city manager and the council she controls. Everyone just wants a chance to have a say and vote on issues. The city has run a great smear campaign against steel. Smear works as you can see on the national level.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle between the union and the city

The "No" campaign is going to win this pretty easily. All the top democratic city leaders are parroting "No" and have pumped a lot of money into advertising. That's all the low-information Hispanic and young people need.

Workers comp is purchased and controlled by the insurance company. Unless the city is self funding workers comp, they have no control over denying or approving claims.

San Antonio may self-insure. Does that have an impact on workers comp?

The city is self insured and controls workman's comp claims.

With 84% reporting , it "YES" on all three leads. It looks like A and B are a solid "YES" but there's only a 2K vote difference on C. I'm honestly surprised because "NO" was well organized.

No
Yes
Maybe

It's amazing how prop "C" was so close. Half the city voted against their firefighters.

Final:
A - No
B - Yes
C - Yes
http://home.bexar.org/el45a.htm

O'Doyle Rules said:

---

CoolaidWade said:

---

It's amazing how prop "C" was so close. Half the city voted against their firefighters.

---

Because citizens didn't want to see the fire union twist the city's arm into arbitration over little things the union would deem as "unfair" to them.

---

Ok, got it. I assumed the "little things" were just a actual contract which they haven't got in five years.

Thanks to all that supported us.

Burdizzo said:

---

The fire union doesn't want a new contract because they know a new one will cut back on their benefits. They are happy to continue under the evergreen provision and still make the city look like the unfaithful partner in this deal.

---

This. The fire union also thinks that having zero healthcare premiums for self and family is a right because they have always had it. The city manager is right in saying that is unsustainable. The general public / taxpayers see this as throwing a temper tantrum. All the union needs to do is agree to a % pay increase and begin to pay premiums for the healthcare . It's not that hard.

Burdizzo said:

---

The fire union doesn't want a new contract because they know a new one will cut back on their benefits. They are happy to continue under the evergreen provision and still make the city look like the unfaithful partner in this deal.

---

If you completely reverse that then you would be right. The FD wants a new contract before evergreen expires. After five years of no faith by the city of SA it now benefits the city to let it run out where the FD has no leg to stand on with no contract. They are essentially starving the FD out at this point.

At least now, with a whopping 51% of the vote by the citizens maybe the two can finally go to the table and make a fair contract for both sides. Five years now.

The union can get a contract any time they want, but they know it won't be nearly as good as what they have now. They know sticking with the evergreen is far better (fatter) than any contract deal the city will propose. The union is starving themselves rather than face economic reality that the city can't afford their and the police union's demands.

Taxpayers pay the fire and police salaries and benefits. I think Sculley is overpaid, but I support her stance on this contract issue.

We have wanted a contract for five years. Negotiations are supposed to be done in "good faith". How is it possible to negotiate a contract with your employer when they are suing you over the last contract. It was easy. Drop the lawsuit that everyone in both sides knew would never win and get back to the table to negotiate. City never dropped the lawsuit. Never came to negotiate "in good faith". Every contract is worth so much money. We either get that in raises or insurance. We have always given up raises for insurance. We offered to take over our own insurance to take it out of negotiations but the city actually makes money off of it and they do not want to give it up. If the city won't negotiate in good faith what is the next option. Binding arbitration. Why do you think the city was opposed to it? Because the arbitrators will see what the city is doing and agree with us. All they had to do is drop the lawsuit.

Agree to disagree but thanks for telling me what is going on in a union I am an active member and talk to the reps every day.

Best thread on this board since the revolution

You can tell us. This is a trust tree. Are you Scully or Ron?

****in lunatics

Quote:

---

Regarding Prop B, the measure will not affect Sculley; her contract is not retroactive under Prop B. While Brockhouse admitted she has performed well in the position, he believes she should step down.

"I do believe that it's time to turn the page on the city manager," said Brockhouse. "I also called today for the city council to give serious consideration to begin a nationwide search after we 'right-size' that job description."

"I think she should resign," he added.

---

Why should she resign her job again?

Clearly prob b was nothing more than more political bs

City's credit rating took a hit because of #3. That will cost the city and tax payers a lot of money.

True that.